@SeductionMyth true a traditional spammer wouldn't but you seem to be a unique breed of spammer..... the logic behind this is due to the fact that by definition you are spamming for your website, your site may be right but the point is you are spamming on a movie trailer....ill give your advertisement credit since you replied.
alright i agree with what these women say about trusting men (my ex had a very bad experience) but what about these teen sluts that do things i never imagined at their age (i hear storied from my friends about their children as young as 6th grade)... what can you tell them? makes me not want to have kids
@Oxiskei well, you should feel bored as crap, cause seduction is crap.
Read SeductionMyth c o m and understand why seduction is just a cultural label transformed by some sharp guys who humbly call themselves "pick-up artists" in a money making machine. Problem is it doesnt work.
No SCIENTIFIC experiment has ever confirmed the idea that men can "create attraction".
To the contrary research quoted on SeductionMyth shows the exact opposite of what the PUAs are teachin and preaching
@kungblao PUA is a F@CKING SCAM !!! How on earth do you know what worked for you??? How the f@ck do you know whether the girl wasn't into you before you even opened your mouth? For YOUR OWN GOOD (you gonna thank me one day) read at least once section "How Come I Saw Seduction Working" and section "Do Yourself A Favor" on SeductionMyth com, and then get back to me to discuss it.
@kungblao PS: have your ever heard the expression "dating is a numbers game". That is what "worked" for you. You just approached more women than before going into this PUA fraud. Basic math "worked" not these PSEUDOscientific techniques. IF i am wrong there should be at least one study showing that guys using it have higher success rates than guys of similar looks who don't. Now take a guess why there is no such study in the whole friggin internet? Read SeductionMyth "Reality Check"
@SeductionMyth dude..im on your site now reading your "info"...as soon as I come back..I'm going to destroy this "logic"...but I'm going to read everything first so you can't say anything about me even reading your page. I'm about halfway done right now and there are so many holes in your theories that I could use them as a sponge to soak up my dog's pee off the floor. That's not a direct insult to you and you're character bc I don't know you...so I must ask...are you a m or f?
@SeductionMyth Ok..for you to say "PUA is a F@CKING SCAM!!!" on this page, but then turn around and say "Not all Pick Up Artists are a scam" on your site is truly misleading and hypocritical. That's like me saying "Check me out of FOX News tonight!" and "GOP's are FRAUDS!", but going on Fox and say "Not all GOP's are frauds." I would have just blown myself out of the water. There are way too many aspects of PUA to group the entire thing as a scam.
@SeductionMyth As Mystery CONSTANTLY SAYS "PUA is not about picking up hot girls..it's about BUILDING A LIFE." This is why people who drop out early from studying walk away thinking that PUA is all about picking up girls, when its not. Lets reverse genders. If you were an average looking stripper working with HOT STRIPPERS, then you are going to need a GAME PLAN to compete or you're going to be going home broke everyday. This is how ugly strippers get paid. CREATING ATTRACTION.
@kungblao Then why there is not even one FAIR scientific study proving attraction can be created you wise ass?? not only one on the whole friggin internet! Moreover, all studies quoted under "Reality Check" PROVE attraction is about GENES not skills - read first than comment
@SeductionMyth There are women that I have slept with that another guy may have not found attractive, but there was something in HER CHARACTER THAT CREATED THE ATTRACTION that wasn't there at first. I looked into her SOUL and it was attractive. This is why if you imagine a HB in your head, who has shitty attitude, there is a veil of GREY covering the image, but if you think of a less attractive woman with a beautiful personality, the image comes CLEAR in your mind. Try it now.
@SeductionMyth I know plenty of women who initially HATED the guy that they ended up with, but he did something later on that sparked an attraction in her. Women aren't like men. They don't want to pursue every man that they are attracted to. You don't need a scientific study to prove this. Just ask a few chicks....duh.
@kungblao Because women don't notice the first visual trigger of attraction, which is in their subconscious. IF you are right, IF only skills matter, then Dr Alvarez and many others would not have been able to find ANY correlations between facial features in couples. It all would be random! section "Her Type" - how can you explain that, and it's about asking women questions, or Helen Fisher's studies? also were about examining REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICE
@SeductionMyth Whend did I say that only skills matter? It's hard to debate with someone who exaggerates and reinterprets about 50% of everything you say. Please point out where I said Only skills matter. And why is okay that Dr Alvarez's study was done by simply interviewing women, but any other study that I present can't be done in a similar fashion..even though its not? The studies you are presenting were done in an interview fashion. FAIL.
@SeductionMyth And as the more I'm thinking about how ridiculous your ideology is..you're asking for scientific studies of things that are already well known. Its no secret that an ugly guy can pull up to a bar in a nice car, dressed nice, tell a few jokes, and walk out the bar with the hottest chick. You don't need science to prove that genius because it happens every weekend. While you're online trying to prove this shit, that is where I will be.
@SeductionMyth A woman will blow an AMOG10 out of the water.. and sleep with a AFC... WAY quicker than a guy will drop a HB10 and fuck a HB6 or 7. This is for several reasons, but she will CREATE THE ATTRACTION FOR AN AFC, even if it wasn't there before sleeping with an AMOG who she is attracted to, but a DICK. I am a very tall and handsome man, but I lacked confidence. When I started doing PUA, I was told SEVERAL TIMES to, "Tone it down" bc I they were already attracted to me.
@SeductionMyth In your "Do Yourself a Favor" article, it is true ONLY because the test subject did PUA routines BEFORE going out and trying Natural Game. Natural Game will always work better than PUA routines..but ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE MASTERED THE PUA ROUTINES. If you take an AFC who knows ZERO PUA and have him try Natural Game, then have him go out and try PUA routines, the success rate IS ALWAYS BETTER with the PUA routines once he gets congruent. I have NEVER seen the opposite.
@kungblao WTF? That's just an excuse! There is not even one test showing guys using this PUA bullcrap have a better SUCCESS RATE than other guys.
Explain to me why for example Paul Janka’s success rate is only 9,8%? (Mystery and Tyler Durden admitted having a similar success rate) Before replying read end of section “BS Created So Far” under tab “Alpha-Lames” on SeductionMyth com.
@SeductionMyth Before studying PUA, I had NO IDEA how to start a threesome. By studying Neil Strauss' threesome routines in his Annihilation Method, I have had more threesomes now than I can even count. And I use the SAME EXACT ROUTINE EVERY TIME. U dont need to be a scientist to do the scientific method, which has 4 steps: Characterization, Hypothesis, Predictions, & Experiment. So if I do the same experiment, and it works more than 50% of the time, then I myself can vouch for it
@kungblao GOD, again and again. You are having better results after using PUA bullcrap than before, simply because after studying this bullshit you are hitting on MORE women than before studying it. It's called MATH, NOT seduction! Otherwise, there would be some scientific studies proving PUAs have better results than other guys of similar physical attractiveness. I am talkin about statistically significant samples, not PUA "field testing" : )
@SeductionMyth I notice that you assume that PUA's hit on more women after studying PUA. This is simply not the case. What you FAIL to realize is once studying PUA, my caliber of women were a lot hotter, so just the opposite happened. Second, you don't need to be a scientist to do the scientific method. You say Paul Janka's rate is 9.8% as proof of a failed success rate, yet you won't use that as a scientific study bc there weren't a bunch of college AFC's running the experiment.
@kungblao Its obvious that they hit on more women then before studying PUA bullshit, they talk about chicks all the time, focus on all those theories, focus on approaching women more than aother guys, what do you expect?
@SeductionMyth You are assuming that AFCs don't approach women as much as PUAs. If you ask a woman, they will tell you that they have been approached by AFC's far more than being approached by a PUA. True, SOME NEW PUAs try to play the numbers game, but this is because they are still striking out bc they are still new...there's no SUCCESS yet. Once I got successful at PUA, I approached far less women because I got picky. Dude, watch Keys to the VIP.
@kungblao "Dude, watch Keys to the VIP" hahah a reality show is for you a source of objective information LOL
I am asking for at least one study that measures SUCCESS RATES of two groups of guys during lets say speed dating, THIS is fair, a shity show were the winner is picked by 4 self-proclaimed casanovas is not. DUH!
@SeductionMyth Keys to the VIP is not a reality show. Its a competition to do just that...COMPARE SUCCESS RATES. This is national television show that was on the air for three years..in comparison to the "logic" found on your site..I'm going to take my chances with the tv show because I can compare success rates for myself and use what I feel is necessary and throw the rest away. This is Jeen-Kun-Do. Take what you need and fuck the rest.
@SeductionMyth The Herold, & Milhausen, study of 1999 found that 56% of women prefer "bad boys" over "nice guys". "Mike" was presented as a bad boy "PUA" type who has slept with over 10 women. "John" was presented as a "nice guy" and "AFC" type. 56% of women preferred Mike over John. This may not be the EXACT type of study that u are looking for, but once again...this is MORE scientific research that leans toward PUA type of men over AFC type men. Wikipedia: NICE GUY for more.
@SeductionMyth Peter Jonason, from New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, conducted the "James Bond study" and found that "men who are narcissistic, thrill-seeking liars and all round "bad boys" tend to have the greatest success finding more sexual partners." Even more scientific research that leans toward PUA type of men over AFC types.
@SeductionMyth David Schmitt, of Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, surveyed 35,000 people in 57 countries and found a similar link. "It is universal across cultures," he said. While you reject study after study, after study, after study based on whatever reason, you're making yourself delusional to the fact that WOMEN LOVE MEN THAT ARE PLAYERS, PSYCHOPATH LIKE, COCKY & FUNNY. WHO WANT'S LOSER? You don't need scientific research to prove that. Just look around. Cheers!
@SeductionMyth You keep saying there is no "scientific study", so you can easily dismiss my statistics bc they aren't "scientific". However u will use Paul Janka's 9.8% rate as proof that PUA "doesn't work", even tho his study isn't "scientific" either. So u will use low # non-scientific stats to prove your point, but dismiss my higher numbers bc they are non-scientific. But in cold sales, law of averages is 10% AFTER TRAINING. An AFC's stats are even LOWER than that, like 2-5%.
@kungblao It isnt' scientific - BUT WHY THE HELL WOULD PAUL JANKA LIE ABOUT HAVING SUCH LOW SUCCESS RATE? An AFC stats are 2-5%? really how did you measure it? cause CONTRARY to Janka you have a reason to lie
@SeductionMyth 9.8% IS A HIGH SUCCESS RATE, genius! This is only .2% less than law of averages. Anything higher than that is an act of God. He's not claiming to be an act of God. You can put a shitty sales rep in the field, and he will still make sales, but it won't be anywhere near 9.8%. Even after training, it won't be 9.8%, regardless of how many cold approaches. He has to APPLY THE STRATEGIES TO EVERY APPROACH before getting up into the 9% bracket. This is law of averages.
"the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur."
SHORT-TERM balance.... Paul Janka approached thousands of women, so your argument is weak, if the sample is big enough his success rate (excluding taken women etc.) should be a lot HIGHER than 9,8%. PROVIDED these techniques DO really work. But if there are other things that matter more (women having their "types") it explains why even guys like Janka get rejected.
@SeductionMyth Dude..you're delusional. If you actually READ the ENTIRE definition of LAW OF AVERAGES, it clearly states that if one flips a fair coin 100 times, there is only an 8% chance that there will be exactly 50 heads. FAIL. By the same token, if Paul Janka approaches thousands of women, there will only be an 8-10% chance of him being successful ON EVERY APPROACH, depending on your definition of "successful". Owned. You suck at this.
@SeductionMyth 9.8% is still a high number, when ur stats were 5% prior to studying, regardless of if you are approaching more women. An AFC's stats are lower bc he approaches fewer women, but PUA TEACHES YOU TO APPROACH MORE WOMEN. You can be AFC and approach more women and still bomb bc YOU STILL HAVE NO GAME PLAN. Your odds are higher with PUA training bc you are approaching more HB's BUT WITH A GAME PLAN. It's a COMBINATION OF APPROACHING MORE HB'S AND HAVING A GAME PLAN.
@kungblao hahaha 9.8% a high number?? For a guy who is as good looking as confident as Paul Janka, Harvard education, what else you want? Are you for real or just in denial??
@SeductionMyth If you DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH on law of averages, you would know that ALL LAW OF AVERAGES DO NOT GO HIGHER THAN 10%. Anything else is considered "an act of God." This is not my PERSONAL OPINION. But you must consider that an AFC has LOWER AVERAGES THAN THIS, not only bc he approaches fewer women, but bc he has no game plan. Also, phone numbers do not count as SUCCESS to a vet PUA, but THEY DO to a AFC turned PUA. Success is a personal goal, not scientific.
@kungblao "Success is a personal goal, not scientific." another excuse not to compare the success rates of lets say 100 PUA to 100 "AFC" of similar physical attractiveness, read section the Experiment on SeductionMyth, will you part take if we organize this study, chicken?? ;)
@SeductionMyth "Success is a personal goal, not scientific" is NOT an excuse to compare success rates of AFCs and PUA's and you completely missed that point. To an AFC...simply getting a phone number is a SUCCESS. To a PUA, getting a phone number is NOT A SUCCESS. So when you are asking to "compare success rates", at some point, you must ask "What do you consider success?" Bc if ur basing it off phone numbers, then AFCs have a slight advantage, which is unfair. THINK, genius.
@kungblao PS: Whatever you say about the law of averages, you cannot deny that comparing SUCCESS RATES of a 100 PUAs to 100 regular guys is a FAIR WAY to prove it. For sure MORE RELEVANT than interviewing women! (whats your alternative? none! you just want to assume PUA works) This way we test women's actual ACTIONs not OPINIONS. Plus such interviews disregard other factors. Read Reality Check tab on SeductionMyth com
@SeductionMyth Your argument is weak. On "Do Yourself a Favor" you ask men to approach women as a PUA and as an AFC...simply because YOU don't have any research that shows that an AFC's odds are just as good as a PUA. If u did, then u would have presented that info instead of asking men to do it their self. I am here to tell u that I already DID this experiment and JUST THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED. But it is typical of you to reject MY study even tho u asked me to "Do myself a favor."
@kungblao Ps 2: EVERY scientific study is based on statistics. SO what the FUCK are you talkin about?? How do you want to prove it? Oh, right, I know where U going with this - you imply we can't prove it, and bingo! so we have to ASSUME it works LOL
@SeductionMyth No. I, unlike you, don't have to assume shit. In fact, all of your anti PUA crap is all based on assumptions, bc you can't provide any scientific study that PUA DOESNT WORK. Owned. Im sure that if there were studies that showed PUA DOESNT WORK, you would provide that info, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE STUDY WAS DONE. But since you cant, the only way that I can see if it works is to go out into the field and try it for myself, which you obviously havent done yet.
@SeductionMyth For Paul Janka to put out a statement saying he has a success rate higher than 10% would be considered "an act of God". Even the best professional sales reps try not to put on the record that their sales quotas are higher than the law of averages, bc it puts pressure on them to keep that number up. Law of averages is 10%, REGARDLESS of what field you're talking about. However, someone who hasn't been trained in that field will have a LOWER %. This is common sense.
@SeductionMyth PUA is a way of coding excellence. We achieve results through the programs we run, not #'s alone. just as a computer is a sequence of codes, PUA programs are a sequence of behavioral and mental codes. Most AFC's dont know they are AFCs. The PUA programs are STRATEGIES to TRANSFORM thinking from AFC to PUA. If the AFC model's the PUA behavior, eventually it will CLICK. If u have the strategy for how someone managed their experience, u have the KEY to reproducing it.
@kungblao I want EVIDENCE not analogies! Read the link to Alek Novy site on the main page of SeductionMyth com, and at least TRY to explain why no one tested this PUA delusion although there is a HUGE ECONOMIC incentive to test it!
@SeductionMyth Its not an analogy if MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT IT WORK. I dont need to be a scientist in order to show something to the next guy. When u go into the military, a drill instructor BARKS ON YOU for 2 months to get you prepared for military life. Is all military life like boot camp? No. But they teach you EXTREME TRAINING so later YOU WILL BE PREPARED. PUA works the same, thats why they call it boot camp. It's misogynistic in nature to PREPARE YOU in the field.
@SeductionMyth After I first finished studying PUA, and I approached women, I bombed dozens of times bc I WAS TOO AGGRESSIVE. Common sense told me to calibrate and ease up. When you are in a PUA boot camp, u cannot tell this secret to an AFC. U HAVE TO DRILL HIS ASS with misogynistic concepts in order to prepare him for the field. He will learn to calibrate and become congruent on his own. This is no secret. You make it work FOR U, not for the next person. I dont think u get this.
@SeductionMyth When a chef is making a dinner, not only does he have to follow the recipe for ingredients. He is also following a recipe for thinking and behavior. IT'S A COMBINATION OF BOTH. You keep asking for stats, when you provide zero stats proving otherwise. Where are YOUR STATS proving that PUA DOESN'T WORK? IT WORKS BOTH WAYS. If there have been no tests done, then ONE CANNOT DETERMINE whether or not they work unless they try for THEIR SELF. No study=ZERO RESULTS.
@kungblao I DO provide stats showing "looks" (not beauty!) is the main attraction trigger - section "Her Type" on SeductionMyth com. IF skills were the decisive factor there wouldnt be any correlations between facial features! THINK RATIONALLY FOR A SEC
@SeductionMyth Professor Richard Wiseman from the University of Hertfordshire did a study in 2008 proving that MAGIC can conjure up confidence and social skills.
Jeffrey Hall and Melanie Canterberry surveyed 363 college students and 850 adults proving that PUA tactics work. It was published in Science Daily magazine August 2011.
Elizabeth Oberzaucher of University of Austria gave results that peacocking increases sex appeal in women. It was published on Discovery TV Feb 2010.
@kungblao Are you retarded?? I asked for studies comparing success rates, not answering GENERAL QUESTIONS! can't you see the difference between comparing success rates and just asking just what kind of attitude they prefer.
Plus: a scientific study about "MAGIC" - are you serious??
@SeductionMyth Even if you did subtract the magic scientific study, I can tell you're trying really hard to ignore the Jeffrey Hall and Melanie Canterberry study, which CLEARLY stated that PUA routines increase your chances to sleep with women. This has been published in several publications. BIG FAIL.
@kungblao "magic scientific study" LOL Dude, I just dont have the time to read it. Because obviously it's a study based on asking questions, interviewing women! You clearly ignore my argument about whether you prefer women with sense of humor or without? Oh, with sense of humor! So here it goes another seductions school for women this time! You can have Brad Pitt dear ladies cause 99% men said they prefer funny women! Read the main page of SeductionMyth and dont commit obvious mistakes
@SeductionMyth You talk about obvious mistakes, when you made a huge obvious mistake of NOT DOING THE FUCKING RESEARCH. Because if you did, I'm sure you would have addressed these studies on your website...regardless of the one about "magic" that you seem to think is bullshit. Whatever, you can have that one. But the BIGGEST STUDY EVER DONE ON PUA WAS BY Hall and Canterberry with over 1100 men and women, but you ASSUME that its just interviewing women when IT'S NOT. FAIL.
@SeductionMyth You asked me to provide a study that compares SUCCESS RATES. Well, the Hall/Canteberry study COMPARES SUCCESS RATES. Now you're bitching about HOW the interview was done by simply asking women questions. Well guess what, genius..? IT WASN'T!!! So now I'm sure you're gonna find some other reason to completely deny this PUBLISHED RESEARCH (unlike yours), even though you never said upfront HOW the study had to be conducted. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. Owned.
@kungblao What? Do I really have to waste my time, read that shitty study to find out they DO NOT compare success rates?! If I am wrong tell me here HOW DID they compare success rates? Just dont' tell me there was a total of 3 guys in the study!? where they?
@SeductionMyth "Two studies were conducted using Mystery's tricks; one amongst college women and another more broad spectrum of women in the nation. Both found, unsurprisingly, that the kind of woman likely to go for the creepy tactics employed by Mystery and his cult followers, like readers of his book The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed, were typically interested only in casual sex, or hated themselves and woman-kind." That is direct quote. FAIL
@kungblao Did you even read you direct quote?? "the kind of woman likely to go for the creepy tactics employed by Mystery and his cult followers, like readers of his book The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed, were typically interested only in casual sex" it DOESN"T say anything about SUCCESS RATES! did they compare the success rate of 2 groups of guys?? Sure, some women go for PUAs, I admitt it on the front page of my website! doesnt fuckin prove anything!
@SeductionMyth With all this talk about success rates, all u have to go do is find a bunch guys who were virgin AFC's and ask them if they are more successful with women after learning PUA. With all your talk about "SUCCESS RATES", u FAIL to even realize that u never even gave a DEFINITION of what SUCCESS IS. OWNED. So that's just another sneaky attempt to find something else to bitch about once people like me show you studies that DO compare success rates, like Hall/Canterberry.
@kungblao That's really the last time I explain it! If you ask women about funny PUA teasing approach or you show them like 4-10 guys to choose from and one uses PUA. WTF do you expect? "No we like the boring usual approach"? A woman has "her type", but what are the chances that "her type" is included in the 4-10 guys she can choose from? Genes are decisive otherwise Dr Helen Fisher couldn't have been able to find all these correlations in the thousands of REAL LIFE couples she study.
@SeductionMyth Who the hell would even conduct a dumb ass biased experiment like that? Who would even think of that besides you? Even a PUA who was a scientist wouldn't be dumb enough to do an experiment like that, and until you show me a study THAT ACTUALLY WAS DONE LIKE THAT, then I am going to go with the info that I found, which shows PUA TACTICS DO WORK. Of all of the studies I provided you, ZERO of them asked "Do you like funny men?" or anything remotely close. FAIL.
@kungblao WAIT the fuck! Now, you are lying, in the comment below you said the study is about interviewing 1100 women and men. By success rate I obviously mean comparing someone's success during speed dating (the cheapest way from the practical point of view).
section "A Job For the MythBusters" on SeductionMyth
@SeductionMyth PS: just to avoid your accusations: speed dating or ANY other fair method of measuring success rates. The bottom line is: I don't want to hear about studies where you ask women HYPOTHETICAL questions, or give them say 3-5 men to choose from - that is NOTHING compared to the variety of choices women have in real life. You gonna bitch about statistics - sure it's not 100% accurate, but A LOT more fair than asking questions or asking to pick one from 3 guys!
@SeductionMyth In your frustration to sell me this crap, you responded to your own comment, genius. And you can't send links through youtube comments, genius. Google: "Pickup manuals like "The Game" help misogynists and self-hating women find each other ". It discusses the study. YOu can also google: "An Actual Study on PUA techniques finds that it works...on misogynistic women". Owned.
@SeductionMyth You expect me to read all that crap on your website, but everytime I point you in the direction of a study, you give me some lame ass excuse of why you're not going to even read it. THINK BEFORE YOU RESPOND...because whatever excuse you reply with besides "Okay, let me check it out" is going to be the exact same response that you get next time you request me to read something from your crappy page, even tho I ACTUALLY READ IT. DON'T BE A DICK.
@SeductionMyth I cant find direct links to the study..and I also can't find direct links to the studies that YOU PROVIDE EITHER, but I still don't dismiss the research simply because YOU FAILED to provide direct links. In fact, I haven't dismissed ANY OF YOUR RESEARCH...and for some reason, you think that I am attacking you personally simply because I don't agree with the crap you are selling. You seem to be taking this personally instead of trying to LEARN SOMETHING.
@kungblao Also read section "Logicall fallacies" on SeductionMyth, cause the amount of logical mistakes you make is just horrifying! Non-sequiturs everywhere! You PUAs in general confuse association with causation - for ex. most successful men tease women so you PUA fools reason merely teasing women gets you orgies with Hollywood starlets LOL
@SeductionMyth Your exaggerations make you delusional. I have never once read ANYWHERE that teasing or "negging" women will get an orgie with Hollywood starlets. What I DID say is that the PUA material is designed to turn an AFC to a PUA. THAT is what I said. Your tone is way off but I understand because you didn't ever expect someone to actually debunk your so called research. Until you address the Hall/Canterberry study, you can keep being delusional. You failed and you know it
@kungblao No you didnt' say that "teasing or "negging" women will get an orgie with Hollywood starlets." That was on obvious JOKE. BUT you DID imply it will give you a higher success rate with the ladies. You didn't even think that there might be a factor that is DECISIVE (looks). It's like saying 90% of chicks find blue jeans sexy (true) so by wearing blue jeans you have better success rates with chicks - absurd conclusion you PUA freaks reach all the time, just swap jeans with negs
@SeductionMyth When did I imply that negging would give a higher success rate with ladies? I never once implied that. I did, however refer you to the Elizabeth Oberzaucher of University of Austria, which gave results that peacocking increases sex appeal in women. Did you not ask for scientific proof that attraction could be created...this is what I did, and you turned that into me implying an "absurd conclusion". This "absurd conclusion" was scientifically studied, genius. FAIL
@kungblao Fuck, another study based on: 1. asking questions or 2. asking women to rate men - DOESNT EXPLAIN ANTHING! Yes, sure it "increases sex appeal" AS A GENERAL rule you moron. It's not like the guy who wear mystery's gay google always gets the girl! Why? because THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS! like genes that a DECISIVE, again and again if genes were not decisive Helen Fisher could't have found all those correlations she describe or you gonna tell me that's just coincidence?
@SeductionMyth Do not use other PUA logic as MY PERSONAL LOGIC. Because I, unlike you, are not giving my PERSONAL OPINIONS. I am giving what you asked for. NUMBERS AND FACTS. I would not try to sell you on an idea that I had not actually gone out myself and got results MYSELF...or RESEARCHED FOR MYSELF. So where did I SPECIFICALLY confuse ASSOCIATION FOR CAUSATION. I know the difference. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE PUTTING YOUR FOOT FURTHER DOWN YOUR THROAT. FAIL. OWNED.
@kungblao "NUMBERS AND FACTS" hahhah, facts and numbers obtained after interviewing 1100 chicks, but YOU IGNORE THE facts and numbers I rely on that were OBTAINED after analyzing REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICE. Very fair LOL
Let me tell you that end of section "the Experiment" on SeductionMyth is about you. don't worry I didn't use the word "retard" ;)
@SeductionMyth "REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICE?" Really? And I'm guessing that these "REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICES" were....WOMEN? And I'm guessing they weren't "Interviewed" but "ANALYZED"? Right. So the MEN AND WOMEN (Not just women, as you are FAILING to recognize) that I present are automatically filtered out by you as being "Interviewed" but the "REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICES" that you present are filtered as "ANALYZED". PPPffffffttttt! Yeah..okay....FAIL.
@kungblao REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICE means you moron, that Helen Fisher (for example!) studied THOUSANDS of couples and she found correlations between their hormone levels. HOW the fuck your PUA PSEUDO-science can explain that?? You retards claim ALL that matter are skills not "looks" (that's different than simply "beuty") or genotypes. "Genes and Personality Types" section SeductionMyth - you said you read it, so why are you asking such stupid questions>???
@SeductionMyth The amount of insults that you throw in your comments, not only dilute your argument, but it makes me feel like I'm debating with a fifth grader, so tone it down a little. You're calling me a moron...I mean...really? It's not that serious. Please point out a PUA philosophy that SPECIFICALLY SAID "ALL THAT MATTERS are skills, not looks. Use a direct quote or link. Until you do, then I will take your comment as another exaggeration and FAIL. Stop exaggerating.
@SeductionMyth And would you like to explain how this "analyzing" was done? How exactly did they "analyze" these "REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICES?" They analyzed them without asking them questions or interviewing them? Please explain this clearly. I unlike you do not need a direct link to the study, but please explain how they were analyzed without being interviewed or asked questions. If you provide a reasonable answer, then perhaps I would like direct links to the study.
@SeductionMyth By you responding "Are you retarded??" while still completely ignoring the Hall and Canterberry study proves how desperate you are to prove a theory that just simply isn't true. Test WERE done, my friend. And these tests concluded that PUA TACTICS WORK. If you simply DID THE FUCKING RESEARCH on Hall and Canterberry, you will see that I'm not making this up. Don't be mad at me..Im just the messenger. FAAAAIIIIIILLLLL.
@kungblao Yes, you must be retarded because I asked you for SUCCESS RATES comparison, not a research where they asked women QUESTIONS! Thats just hilarious, I am not contradicting Hall and Canterberry I am denying the conclusions you draw from this study! For ex. "9 out of 10 women prefer confident men" and PUA morons reason - by mastering self-confidence you can have 9 out of 10 women LOL
@SeductionMyth How did you conclude that the Hall and Canterberry study was done by asking women questions? NEWSFLASH: IT WASNT. Besides, the other studies like Peter Caryl show that women prefer funny PUA opening lines IS PROOF THAT A PUA WILL HAVE A HIGHER SUCCESS RATE than someone who DOESN'T USE FUNNY PUA OPENING LINES. That is common sense, regardless if you agree or not. You do not have to agree with the research. You simply asked me to provide you with studies and I did.
@kungblao THESE ARE YOUR OWN WORDS FROM YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT:
"Jeffrey Hall and Canterberry interviewed over 1100 men and women"
So I ask you again, DID they interview or they measured success rates during "action" (honestly doubt they did this last one)
Ok, one more retarded comment like that and you gonna force me to read that friggin study for you to shut up. But could we skip that? Could you just admit they didn't measure any success rates? JUST SEND A LINK TO THE STUDY, ok?
@SeductionMyth They did interview women..but they ALSO ran Mystery's M3 method. There were several types of tests done..some interviewed and some were actual approaches. But I'm sure you're going to ignore the fact that actual approaches were done and just focus on the part about the interview. And regardless if you agree or not as far as the interview process, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK because this is a PUBLISHED STUDY. "How" the interview was done is YOUR gripe.
@SeductionMyth There were TWO different studies done...ONE was interviewing COLLEGE STUDENTS ONLY. The SECOND one was done using Mystery's method. What you FAIL to realize is that these are PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS from the University of Kansas, so your lame ass gripe about HOW the research was obtained is a FAIL, especially when all the research THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING WAS DONE BY INTERVIEWING WOMEN!!! FAIL!!!
@kungblao YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. At least once read the studies on SeductionMyth. NONE of them are about interviewing anyone, it's about analyzing thousands of couples and the correlations between genotypes, facial features, etc. How on earth can you beat that?
@SeductionMyth Okay well if the studies that you support were done by "analyzing" people, then mine were done by "analyzing" people too. What's the difference? Besides, you didn't even bother to read the article so, you can't even give a proper response without ASSUMING that ALL SIX studies I provided were done with interviews. You're guessing, exaggerating, and justifying without even reading the study or even an article about the study. FAIL.
@SeductionMyth Dr Victoria Zdrok, J.D., Ph.D has done actual field research and is a member of the seduction community. NONE of her research comes from interviewing women, but is actually FIELD TESTED...and she teaches men how to use FIELD TESTED MATERIAL to seduce women. So how can a doctor teach seduction from field tested material if none of this works and there is no such thing as seduction? Failed again.
@kungblao LOL a member of the seduction community! Oh, yes this is for sure a fair study LOL "Field testing" is nothing but anecdotes! It IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE REPORT. Have you ever heard of serious scientists "field testing" smth ?? Unless you gonna tell me they track their results in excel and its done but scientists from lets say Harvard. No, the guys who sell that PUA bullshit have no incentive to lie in their "field testing";) are you like the most naive guy on this planet??
@SeductionMyth Do you even know what field testing is? Field testing is doing exactly what you have been crying about this entire time..going out into the FIELD...running PUA MATERIAL, then examining the results and comparing them. U keep dismissing PUBLISHED RESEARCH from a "HOLIER THAN THOU" perspective without even reading ANY of the material and providing direct quotes to support your so called logic. I have yet to see you directly quote any PUA material that you consider BS.
@SeductionMyth This is exactly how you sound. "PUA is a scam." Which part is a scam? "All of it, but not all of it. Some of it." Why? "BC theres no science backing it up." Well I found a few studies that do support it. "Its bullshit." Did u even read it? "I don't have to." Well how can u say its BS if you didnt read it? "BC they interviewed women & asked stupid questions." NO THEY DIDN'T. Show me. "I dont have to. LOL." Can you show me studies that prove PUA doesn't work? "Um..."
@kungblao Last thing: ask dr Zdrok whether she was attracted to all the guys in the community she is in? WHY NOT? according to you all that matters are skills, there you have ex-playmate Victoria Zdrok, blond bombshell, and guys who are skilled. According to your twisted views, they should all have her! In REAL LIFE: Dr Zdrok with her fake "field testing" report, has "her type", facial features (not necessarily beauty) genes etc. Thats why she won't go for ANY guy from the community
@SeductionMyth Please point out where I said "All that matters is skills." Fail. Use direct quotes, not exaggerations. Owned. You keep asking for "specific research", yet you exaggerate my comments to fit them into your own philosophy. In fact, I think you have only directly quoted me one time during this entire debate (that you are turning into an arguement bc you keep FAILING.) Please point out specifically where I said "All that matters is skills".
@SeductionMyth You're asking me to read all of these articles which I have already read, yet I provide you with several studies on PUA, and you reply "I don't have time to read them." I am simply providing the information that you said was not out there and you are swearing at me and and ending every sentence with a punctuation mark. Jeffrey Hall and Canterberry interviewed over 1100 men and women..some after being approached by PUAs. To deny you are wrong is just desperate.
@kungblao YOU ADMITTED IT YOURSELF so I don't have to read that shit: "They INTERVIEWED 1100 and women". Why didn't they check the effectiveness of 1100 actions??
I am not asking for friggin interviews, but comparison of success rates! it's the only way to eliminate other factors!
Could fucking at least try to respond my arguments??
@SeductionMyth Peter Caryl of University of Edinburgh, conducted a study of 127 women resulting in extroverted women tended to prefer funny PUA opening lines. Seattle TImes-Sept 3 2007.
Dr. Paul Eastwick of Northwestern University did a study on 200 speed dates, determining that women are more attracted to social and economic status, rather than physical traits. I.E. men can LIE about their social status to CREATE ATTRACTION THAT WAS NOT ALREADY THERE.
@kungblao So keep going, cause THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED FOR! The study merely said that women tended to prefer "funny opening lines". OMG! If I ask you if you prefer women with sense of humor or without, what you gonna reply? Than some fat ugly chick reasons "oh oh, so if I master sense of humor I can have any guy I want!" LOL Thats exactly the way you PUAs reason!
I asked about a study comparing SUCCESS RATES! pay attention! Read main page on SeductionMyth and don't waste my time.
@SeductionMyth You are also ignoring the Paul Eastwick study that proves that women are less attracted to physical traits and more attracted to social status, proving that creation can be created when it was not there to begin with. If a guy lies about his social status, a woman can be more attracted to him when she originally was not. Youtube: Science of Sex Appeal: What Women Find Attractive and watch the last minute or so. FAIL AGAIN.
@kungblao These studies were about LONG-term relationships of course, there are TONS of studies proving that for casual sex (thats what you PUAs focus mainly on) women take into consideration LOOKS primary! Moreover, the study didn't say women completely disregard lookss even for long term relationships. And finally you didn't explain why Helen Fisher or Dr Alvarez came to the conclusion its all about types "Her Type" section on SeductionMyth
@SeductionMyth These studies were NOT about LONG TERM RELATIONSHIPS, and you keep beating around the bush...YOU deny any research whatsoever that doesn't prove your "logic". Just like in "Do yourself a favor" u tell people to go out and do research for themselves, however u seem to deny anyone who finds the opposite to be true. Thats like flipping a coin and saying that it's going to be heads everytime, but then blaming the table, the wind, and even the coin itself when its tails.
@kungblao "Thats like flipping a coin and saying that it's going to be heads everytime," If you flip a coin an adequate number of times it's always gonna be 50/50. In "Do Yourself A Favor" I ask guys to hit on a big enough amount of chicks during a long enough period of time...
@SeductionMyth No, genius. If you flip a coin 100 times, there is only an 8% chance that it will always be 50/50. I guess in your mind, all you have to do is wish really hard for your opinions to be "true" and they will be. FAIL. Research law of averages. It clearly states that there is an 8% chance for it to be 50/50. This is the very basis of Law of Averages, which you FAIL to understand. Owned.
@kungblao Are you fuckin kiddin me?? If you flip a coin 2000 times your success rate will be about 50% not 10%! Janka approached THOUSANDS of women, so if you deduct the single ones (let's say even 50%) and the lesbians (let's say even 5%) and let's say another 5% of other strange situations (crazy women etc.) his success rate should be still like 40%! But it's 9,8% WHY? Cause women have their types, and they come down to genes (not beauty itself)
@SeductionMyth "Belief that a sample's average must equal its expected value. For example, if one flips a fair coin 100 times, there is only an 8% chance that there will be exactly 50 heads." That is a direct quote from Wikipedia. Not wishful thinking. FAIL.
@SeductionMyth You never asked me to research "Long term relationships." You asked me to find research on "SUCCESS RATES", then you told me to pay attention...remember? Well I did just that, then you started talking about how the research I found doesn't count because the women were "interviewed". I then pointed out that only PART of the study was an interview process, then you started talking about how it doesn't count bc YOUR research is based on LTR's. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.
@kungblao YES, I asked you for success rates, and until today you didn't give me one study showing success rates. OBVIOUSLY I want statistically significant group! Not like some PUA showed me one day a study with 3 guys and 3 girls LOL
Success rates: 2 large groups of guys hitting on the same large group of girls, and then we check their success rates.
@SeductionMyth The study wasn't done by simply asking women "Do you prefer a guy who gives funny opening lines" and for you to even assume that shows that you haven't done your research. The Peter Caryl study had women exposed to dozens of PUA openers and routines and asked to evaluate and rate them on a scale from 1 to 5. There were ZERO direct questions. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS are putting your foot further down your throat.
@kungblao GOOD, I just gave you an EXAMPLE. OK, so he exposed them to "dozens of PUA openers and routines". So FUCKIN WHAT?? Can't you see that in such study he didn't even contemplate the effect of looks (facial features NOT beauty). He just ASSUMED looks don't matter. BUT if you compare the SUCCESS RATEs during say speed dating, you examine almost ALL factors. The only way to see whether some factor has some influence on the final outcome is to rule out other factors.
@SeductionMyth You're pulling teeth, here. Different studies focus on specific aspects that others do not. It doesn't matter if the Peter Caryl study didn't contemplate the effect of looks, because the Elizabeth Oberzaucher of University of Austria DID. All you have to do is add the results together. This is what us college graduates call a THESIS. I know somehow you're gonna say "You can't do that", but that's exactly what a THESIS is. Cumulative research and findings. FAIL.
@SeductionMyth Your entire website is a waste of time, and I'm starting to realize that you provide this so called "logic" just to get people to click around on your site, in hopes of one day somebody is actually gonna publish that crap. Good luck with that. I'm not insulting you personally, because I'm sure you a nice dude, but nobody is buying that crap on that site. I read all the comments and everything and I'm not the only one saying what I am saying. Your research sucks.
@kungblao My "logic"?? LOL that's just logic, if you don't accept it stop debating. About the comments of my website, every PUA was literally destroyed by guys like Piotr (recommend his comments on evolution), Alek Novy, Jake and Mike - but I guess you didn't even read them, you just skipped them and went straight to the comments where some zombie PUA said things I explained 100 times on my website.
@SeductionMyth Um..no. Alek Novy pointed out several hundred studies that were done...and you tried to use the same argument that you are using now. "Oh, gripe..it was an interview! Oh gripe, it doesn't count because they didn't use facial attractiveness! Oh gripe, it doesn't count because they didn't interview long term relationships! Oh gripe gripe gripe!" With all this griping, you are failing to realize that these are OFFICIAL PUBLISHED STUDIES, unlike ANY of your work.
@kungblao Again, and again, we are only demanding a study the would at least come close to what happen IN REAL LIFE. In real life women are not presented 10 guys in a club, NO they can choose from thousands of guys during a weekend night out! How to simulate it? My best idea: speed dating with a large group. That's why studies showing REAL LIFE partner choice show GENETIC patterns. This is more important than status, CAUSE OTHERWISE it would be random, don't you get it?
@SeductionMyth Please point out a study that asked the dumb ass question that you are referring to as far as "Do you like confident men?" Fact: I did not provide a study that asked dumb ass questions like that, and for you to even suggest such an exaggeration of a PUBLISHED STUDY shows how much you are trying to exaggerate PUBLISHED STUDIES to fit into your so called logic. I never once provided a study that asked stupid questions like that, but you are saying that I did. FAIL.
@SeductionMyth It is obvious to me now that unless YOU are the one who does the research in the way that YOU want it done, and it gets the results that YOU want, then you are going to deny and not even bother to read ANY other research that debunks your views. This is not the way, my friend.
@kungblao I already explain your stupid study is about INTERVIEWS! And I demand comparing REAL RESULTS! Is this so much to ask?? Moreover, the funniest thing is that you PUA keep repeating not to listen to what women say, but when asked for studies, you mention a study consisting of INTERVIEWS!
I described it in section "The Experiment" on SeductionMyth com
@SeductionMyth Youtube: Science of Sex Appeal: What Women Find Attractive. Turns out there are SEVERAL studies done like this on the whole friggin internet. FAIL. They took regular looking guys and changed their social status around and had women rate them based on their looks and social status. And women rated men who "peacocked" more, had higher social status, and made more money..HIGHER than men who didn't. Now I'm sure ur gonna bitch about HOW the study was done. Owned.
@SeductionMyth FAIL. IN the "Science of Sex Appeal: What Women Find Attractive", they did not ask women a "SET OF QUESTIONS" at all. They were told to RATE the men on a scale of 1-10 based on a combination of his looks, income, and social status. They determined that "FACIAL FEATURES" were the least of importance bc the ugliest man got the highest rating when women thought he had the most money. FAIL. Owned again. DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH.
@kungblao WHAT IS THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE, between asking women a set of questions, and asking women to rate men? Isn't that a fucking question?? "Please rate this men on a scale 1-10"? There was a very limited amount of rated men. Doesn't prove anything! It is nothing compared to the variety of choices she find IN REAL LIFE! My studies, both Dr Alvarez and others, and Helen Fisher studies were about REAL LIFE partner choice, is it so hard to get the difference??
@kungblao I watched that before you even new there was such video on YouTube, Of COURSE women take money into account, when there are two guys who are "her type" she is gonna pick the wealthier! But it doesn't mean the richest guy in the club can pick up ANY girl he wants! Do you really think this is the world we live in?? No, why? CAUSE WOMEN HAVE THEIR TYPES. The only way to prove smth is by comparing SUCCESS RATES not asking a girl to rate 3 or even 10 guys.
@kungblao Where in this movie can you find the word "peacocking" ?? If you gonna LIE, stop debating, OK? I watched that movie years ago, and obviously it doesn't prove seduction! Yes, sure women prefer guys with higher social skills if you ask them a HYPOTHETICAL quesion (or give 2, 3 guys to choose from), but IN REAL LIFE, what women pay attention to are principally FACIAL FEATURES - section "Her Type" is based on REAL LIFE partner choice. Don't you fuckin see the difference?
@SeductionMyth Oh my god, you're pulling teeth. They didn't use the word "Peacocking", but I'm sure you know the definition of peacocking, which includes a nice car and dressing in a way that demonstrates a high social status. I am a PUA, so I used the word "peacocking"...but its the same damn result. Common sense is not illegal. THINK. It's not illegal yet..but people like you are working on that everyday.
@kungblao OMG! No, they didn't recommend looking like a christmas tree like mystery does. This "amazing" discovery doesn't prove anything. What the fuck did you expect?? "No, I don't like men wearing nice clothes, standing out of the crowd" ?? But does it mean this woman IN REAL LIFE would always choose the guy who is dressed like that? Chances are low. Why? THERE ARE OTHER MORE IMPORTANT FACTORS! which is proven in "Reality Check" tab on SeductionMyth
@SeductionMyth The point of the study was that a high paying job and a high social status (aka peacocking) is of more importance to women than looks alone. Stop pulling teeth, when you know damn well you are owned. Just face it. I have provided the studies that you said didn't exist. And all of the studies that you are presenting consist of INTERVIEWING WOMEN...REGARDLESS if they are in a LTR or not. And just so you don't start pulling teeth, LTR means LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP.
@kungblao Think RATIONALLY for a second at lest! If that was true then (according to you) guys with highest paying jobs and highest social status should be able to get LITERALLY ANY single straight women. You really think this is the world we live in?? Of course not. Why? Cause there are other FACTORS! The study is about asking question/rating A FEW MEN, I am asking for a study that compares the success of 2 large groups of men. IS THIS TOO MUCH TO ASK after 15 years of PUA craze??
@Oxiskei@Oxiskei google PUA. Also google these terms: PUA M3 Method. PUA LMR. PUA SHIT TEST. PUA HOOP THEORY. PUA AFC. Read the PUA Glossary. Watch as many episodes of KEYS TO THE V.I.P. that you can. Download "The PickUp Artist"-VH1. Get an account on FastSeduction-com . Watch the movie "Alfie", "Let the Game Begin", "Crazy, Stupid, Love", "Wedding Crashers", and "Swingers". You will never look at women the same...and you will wish that you didn't even know this info.
WTF ! Everybody's fighting about man/woman relationship ?? And who is wright and wrong . .??? JEZZZUS, it would be easier to decide what is older chicken or the motherfucking egg ?!!?!! :D
god. can we all just admit that chicks have more difficulties in life than awesome boobs? as far as looks guys NORMALLY dont have it as hard. NORMALLY. but if they work out or do their hair or have style then its just as hard as anyone else to look nice. but guys have alot of things they have to do to. like taking care of a family and working hard at a job and in many situations it would be harder to be a man. but the same goes for women. having a job or taking care of kids or looking good and
married woman is NOT a "difficult woman!" FFS! If some peeps really take this movie as anything more than entertainment , then your sense of reality is really corrupted!
read this.once u started there is no turni back. a little 10 year old girl was raped and murdured in 1945. her body was not found untill 1947.then a boy last week read this and did not copy and paste this message. the dead girl appeared in his room haunting him and killed him. if ou do not copy and paste this onto 10 videos in 30 minutes the dead girl will appear in your room tonight and haunt you and kill you. well you better start to copy and paste if you want to be safe
I fucking hate women
krypto899 1 week ago
Comment removed
SeductionMyth 2 weeks ago
it was just me who noticed the apple mark in the lower right corner ?
flakolik 3 weeks ago 5
Check out the new video of the song at 1:22 NO STRINGS ATTACHED.... you can find it on my channel! EFRATMUSIC
EFRATMUSIC 2 months ago
@zeroa69 A spammer wouldnt reply to You! :D
SeductionMyth com shows the real process behind human mating - section "Her Type" for instance....
SeductionMyth 2 months ago
@SeductionMyth true a traditional spammer wouldn't but you seem to be a unique breed of spammer..... the logic behind this is due to the fact that by definition you are spamming for your website, your site may be right but the point is you are spamming on a movie trailer....ill give your advertisement credit since you replied.
zeroa69 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just saw MoneyBall on moviefreezone(dot)com .Brad Pitt is still the most gorgeous man on the planet lol.
marciaf7 2 months ago
What's the name of the song?
Lyrics:
" i wanna have a fun time, no strings attached.. and so on.. 1.19. Anyone please?
Ewie666 2 months ago
@Ewie666 No Strings attached.... its my song.. so glad you like it!!! :)
and check out the new music video on my channel and spread the word if you like! :)
EFRATMUSIC 2 months ago
@EFRATMUSIC Awesome work on that song mate, i just spent like 30 minutes on google trying to find it.
5hads 2 months ago
those butts are hot*
dangbabyfire 2 months ago
Comment removed
dangbabyfire 2 months ago
how to seduce difficult woman?
writen by a homo or a guy that never got laid besides with his wife, on honey moon, ONLY
xxxScOppEexxx 3 months ago
How Depressing. There isn't a single female character in this trailer just a heard of stereotypes.
ChicaPhoto 3 months ago
@ChicaPhoto Which means only one thing - if any stupid man dares to think that this material would be useful - has already failed.
Meresortsitar 2 months ago
@Meresortsitar That's so true!
ChicaPhoto 2 months ago
alright i agree with what these women say about trusting men (my ex had a very bad experience) but what about these teen sluts that do things i never imagined at their age (i hear storied from my friends about their children as young as 6th grade)... what can you tell them? makes me not want to have kids
sims0208 3 months ago
"Would you consider INSANE Difficult?" LMAO
Alliesparks11 3 months ago
I just felt bored as crap and typed in how to seduce women :P
Oxiskei 3 months ago 2
@Oxiskei well, you should feel bored as crap, cause seduction is crap.
Read SeductionMyth c o m and understand why seduction is just a cultural label transformed by some sharp guys who humbly call themselves "pick-up artists" in a money making machine. Problem is it doesnt work.
No SCIENTIFIC experiment has ever confirmed the idea that men can "create attraction".
To the contrary research quoted on SeductionMyth shows the exact opposite of what the PUAs are teachin and preaching
SeductionMyth 3 months ago
@SeductionMyth Bullshit...PUA has worked hundreds of times for me...to the point I left the community. Never diss PUA bro.
kungblao 2 weeks ago
@kungblao PUA is a F@CKING SCAM !!! How on earth do you know what worked for you??? How the f@ck do you know whether the girl wasn't into you before you even opened your mouth? For YOUR OWN GOOD (you gonna thank me one day) read at least once section "How Come I Saw Seduction Working" and section "Do Yourself A Favor" on SeductionMyth com, and then get back to me to discuss it.
SeductionMyth 2 weeks ago
@kungblao PS: have your ever heard the expression "dating is a numbers game". That is what "worked" for you. You just approached more women than before going into this PUA fraud. Basic math "worked" not these PSEUDOscientific techniques. IF i am wrong there should be at least one study showing that guys using it have higher success rates than guys of similar looks who don't. Now take a guess why there is no such study in the whole friggin internet? Read SeductionMyth "Reality Check"
SeductionMyth 2 weeks ago
@SeductionMyth dude..im on your site now reading your "info"...as soon as I come back..I'm going to destroy this "logic"...but I'm going to read everything first so you can't say anything about me even reading your page. I'm about halfway done right now and there are so many holes in your theories that I could use them as a sponge to soak up my dog's pee off the floor. That's not a direct insult to you and you're character bc I don't know you...so I must ask...are you a m or f?
kungblao 2 weeks ago
@SeductionMyth Ok..for you to say "PUA is a F@CKING SCAM!!!" on this page, but then turn around and say "Not all Pick Up Artists are a scam" on your site is truly misleading and hypocritical. That's like me saying "Check me out of FOX News tonight!" and "GOP's are FRAUDS!", but going on Fox and say "Not all GOP's are frauds." I would have just blown myself out of the water. There are way too many aspects of PUA to group the entire thing as a scam.
kungblao 2 weeks ago
@kungblao WTF?? I said not all are scammers because some of them ARE STUPID enough to honestly believe in that bullscrap
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth As Mystery CONSTANTLY SAYS "PUA is not about picking up hot girls..it's about BUILDING A LIFE." This is why people who drop out early from studying walk away thinking that PUA is all about picking up girls, when its not. Lets reverse genders. If you were an average looking stripper working with HOT STRIPPERS, then you are going to need a GAME PLAN to compete or you're going to be going home broke everyday. This is how ugly strippers get paid. CREATING ATTRACTION.
kungblao 2 weeks ago
@kungblao Then why there is not even one FAIR scientific study proving attraction can be created you wise ass?? not only one on the whole friggin internet! Moreover, all studies quoted under "Reality Check" PROVE attraction is about GENES not skills - read first than comment
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth There are women that I have slept with that another guy may have not found attractive, but there was something in HER CHARACTER THAT CREATED THE ATTRACTION that wasn't there at first. I looked into her SOUL and it was attractive. This is why if you imagine a HB in your head, who has shitty attitude, there is a veil of GREY covering the image, but if you think of a less attractive woman with a beautiful personality, the image comes CLEAR in your mind. Try it now.
kungblao 2 weeks ago
@kungblao No! YOU "Try it now". How about proving it on STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT SAMPLES??!!
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth I know plenty of women who initially HATED the guy that they ended up with, but he did something later on that sparked an attraction in her. Women aren't like men. They don't want to pursue every man that they are attracted to. You don't need a scientific study to prove this. Just ask a few chicks....duh.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Because women don't notice the first visual trigger of attraction, which is in their subconscious. IF you are right, IF only skills matter, then Dr Alvarez and many others would not have been able to find ANY correlations between facial features in couples. It all would be random! section "Her Type" - how can you explain that, and it's about asking women questions, or Helen Fisher's studies? also were about examining REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICE
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Whend did I say that only skills matter? It's hard to debate with someone who exaggerates and reinterprets about 50% of everything you say. Please point out where I said Only skills matter. And why is okay that Dr Alvarez's study was done by simply interviewing women, but any other study that I present can't be done in a similar fashion..even though its not? The studies you are presenting were done in an interview fashion. FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth And as the more I'm thinking about how ridiculous your ideology is..you're asking for scientific studies of things that are already well known. Its no secret that an ugly guy can pull up to a bar in a nice car, dressed nice, tell a few jokes, and walk out the bar with the hottest chick. You don't need science to prove that genius because it happens every weekend. While you're online trying to prove this shit, that is where I will be.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth A woman will blow an AMOG10 out of the water.. and sleep with a AFC... WAY quicker than a guy will drop a HB10 and fuck a HB6 or 7. This is for several reasons, but she will CREATE THE ATTRACTION FOR AN AFC, even if it wasn't there before sleeping with an AMOG who she is attracted to, but a DICK. I am a very tall and handsome man, but I lacked confidence. When I started doing PUA, I was told SEVERAL TIMES to, "Tone it down" bc I they were already attracted to me.
kungblao 2 weeks ago
@SeductionMyth In your "Do Yourself a Favor" article, it is true ONLY because the test subject did PUA routines BEFORE going out and trying Natural Game. Natural Game will always work better than PUA routines..but ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE MASTERED THE PUA ROUTINES. If you take an AFC who knows ZERO PUA and have him try Natural Game, then have him go out and try PUA routines, the success rate IS ALWAYS BETTER with the PUA routines once he gets congruent. I have NEVER seen the opposite.
kungblao 2 weeks ago
@kungblao WTF? That's just an excuse! There is not even one test showing guys using this PUA bullcrap have a better SUCCESS RATE than other guys.
Explain to me why for example Paul Janka’s success rate is only 9,8%? (Mystery and Tyler Durden admitted having a similar success rate) Before replying read end of section “BS Created So Far” under tab “Alpha-Lames” on SeductionMyth com.
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Before studying PUA, I had NO IDEA how to start a threesome. By studying Neil Strauss' threesome routines in his Annihilation Method, I have had more threesomes now than I can even count. And I use the SAME EXACT ROUTINE EVERY TIME. U dont need to be a scientist to do the scientific method, which has 4 steps: Characterization, Hypothesis, Predictions, & Experiment. So if I do the same experiment, and it works more than 50% of the time, then I myself can vouch for it
kungblao 2 weeks ago
@kungblao GOD, again and again. You are having better results after using PUA bullcrap than before, simply because after studying this bullshit you are hitting on MORE women than before studying it. It's called MATH, NOT seduction! Otherwise, there would be some scientific studies proving PUAs have better results than other guys of similar physical attractiveness. I am talkin about statistically significant samples, not PUA "field testing" : )
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth I notice that you assume that PUA's hit on more women after studying PUA. This is simply not the case. What you FAIL to realize is once studying PUA, my caliber of women were a lot hotter, so just the opposite happened. Second, you don't need to be a scientist to do the scientific method. You say Paul Janka's rate is 9.8% as proof of a failed success rate, yet you won't use that as a scientific study bc there weren't a bunch of college AFC's running the experiment.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Its obvious that they hit on more women then before studying PUA bullshit, they talk about chicks all the time, focus on all those theories, focus on approaching women more than aother guys, what do you expect?
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth You are assuming that AFCs don't approach women as much as PUAs. If you ask a woman, they will tell you that they have been approached by AFC's far more than being approached by a PUA. True, SOME NEW PUAs try to play the numbers game, but this is because they are still striking out bc they are still new...there's no SUCCESS yet. Once I got successful at PUA, I approached far less women because I got picky. Dude, watch Keys to the VIP.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao "Dude, watch Keys to the VIP" hahah a reality show is for you a source of objective information LOL
I am asking for at least one study that measures SUCCESS RATES of two groups of guys during lets say speed dating, THIS is fair, a shity show were the winner is picked by 4 self-proclaimed casanovas is not. DUH!
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Keys to the VIP is not a reality show. Its a competition to do just that...COMPARE SUCCESS RATES. This is national television show that was on the air for three years..in comparison to the "logic" found on your site..I'm going to take my chances with the tv show because I can compare success rates for myself and use what I feel is necessary and throw the rest away. This is Jeen-Kun-Do. Take what you need and fuck the rest.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth The Herold, & Milhausen, study of 1999 found that 56% of women prefer "bad boys" over "nice guys". "Mike" was presented as a bad boy "PUA" type who has slept with over 10 women. "John" was presented as a "nice guy" and "AFC" type. 56% of women preferred Mike over John. This may not be the EXACT type of study that u are looking for, but once again...this is MORE scientific research that leans toward PUA type of men over AFC type men. Wikipedia: NICE GUY for more.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Peter Jonason, from New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, conducted the "James Bond study" and found that "men who are narcissistic, thrill-seeking liars and all round "bad boys" tend to have the greatest success finding more sexual partners." Even more scientific research that leans toward PUA type of men over AFC types.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth David Schmitt, of Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, surveyed 35,000 people in 57 countries and found a similar link. "It is universal across cultures," he said. While you reject study after study, after study, after study based on whatever reason, you're making yourself delusional to the fact that WOMEN LOVE MEN THAT ARE PLAYERS, PSYCHOPATH LIKE, COCKY & FUNNY. WHO WANT'S LOSER? You don't need scientific research to prove that. Just look around. Cheers!
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth You keep saying there is no "scientific study", so you can easily dismiss my statistics bc they aren't "scientific". However u will use Paul Janka's 9.8% rate as proof that PUA "doesn't work", even tho his study isn't "scientific" either. So u will use low # non-scientific stats to prove your point, but dismiss my higher numbers bc they are non-scientific. But in cold sales, law of averages is 10% AFTER TRAINING. An AFC's stats are even LOWER than that, like 2-5%.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao It isnt' scientific - BUT WHY THE HELL WOULD PAUL JANKA LIE ABOUT HAVING SUCH LOW SUCCESS RATE? An AFC stats are 2-5%? really how did you measure it? cause CONTRARY to Janka you have a reason to lie
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth 9.8% IS A HIGH SUCCESS RATE, genius! This is only .2% less than law of averages. Anything higher than that is an act of God. He's not claiming to be an act of God. You can put a shitty sales rep in the field, and he will still make sales, but it won't be anywhere near 9.8%. Even after training, it won't be 9.8%, regardless of how many cold approaches. He has to APPLY THE STRATEGIES TO EVERY APPROACH before getting up into the 9% bracket. This is law of averages.
kungblao 1 week ago
"the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur."
SHORT-TERM balance.... Paul Janka approached thousands of women, so your argument is weak, if the sample is big enough his success rate (excluding taken women etc.) should be a lot HIGHER than 9,8%. PROVIDED these techniques DO really work. But if there are other things that matter more (women having their "types") it explains why even guys like Janka get rejected.
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Dude..you're delusional. If you actually READ the ENTIRE definition of LAW OF AVERAGES, it clearly states that if one flips a fair coin 100 times, there is only an 8% chance that there will be exactly 50 heads. FAIL. By the same token, if Paul Janka approaches thousands of women, there will only be an 8-10% chance of him being successful ON EVERY APPROACH, depending on your definition of "successful". Owned. You suck at this.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth 9.8% is still a high number, when ur stats were 5% prior to studying, regardless of if you are approaching more women. An AFC's stats are lower bc he approaches fewer women, but PUA TEACHES YOU TO APPROACH MORE WOMEN. You can be AFC and approach more women and still bomb bc YOU STILL HAVE NO GAME PLAN. Your odds are higher with PUA training bc you are approaching more HB's BUT WITH A GAME PLAN. It's a COMBINATION OF APPROACHING MORE HB'S AND HAVING A GAME PLAN.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao hahaha 9.8% a high number?? For a guy who is as good looking as confident as Paul Janka, Harvard education, what else you want? Are you for real or just in denial??
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth If you DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH on law of averages, you would know that ALL LAW OF AVERAGES DO NOT GO HIGHER THAN 10%. Anything else is considered "an act of God." This is not my PERSONAL OPINION. But you must consider that an AFC has LOWER AVERAGES THAN THIS, not only bc he approaches fewer women, but bc he has no game plan. Also, phone numbers do not count as SUCCESS to a vet PUA, but THEY DO to a AFC turned PUA. Success is a personal goal, not scientific.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao "Success is a personal goal, not scientific." another excuse not to compare the success rates of lets say 100 PUA to 100 "AFC" of similar physical attractiveness, read section the Experiment on SeductionMyth, will you part take if we organize this study, chicken?? ;)
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth "Success is a personal goal, not scientific" is NOT an excuse to compare success rates of AFCs and PUA's and you completely missed that point. To an AFC...simply getting a phone number is a SUCCESS. To a PUA, getting a phone number is NOT A SUCCESS. So when you are asking to "compare success rates", at some point, you must ask "What do you consider success?" Bc if ur basing it off phone numbers, then AFCs have a slight advantage, which is unfair. THINK, genius.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao PS: Whatever you say about the law of averages, you cannot deny that comparing SUCCESS RATES of a 100 PUAs to 100 regular guys is a FAIR WAY to prove it. For sure MORE RELEVANT than interviewing women! (whats your alternative? none! you just want to assume PUA works) This way we test women's actual ACTIONs not OPINIONS. Plus such interviews disregard other factors. Read Reality Check tab on SeductionMyth com
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Your argument is weak. On "Do Yourself a Favor" you ask men to approach women as a PUA and as an AFC...simply because YOU don't have any research that shows that an AFC's odds are just as good as a PUA. If u did, then u would have presented that info instead of asking men to do it their self. I am here to tell u that I already DID this experiment and JUST THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED. But it is typical of you to reject MY study even tho u asked me to "Do myself a favor."
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Ps 2: EVERY scientific study is based on statistics. SO what the FUCK are you talkin about?? How do you want to prove it? Oh, right, I know where U going with this - you imply we can't prove it, and bingo! so we have to ASSUME it works LOL
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth No. I, unlike you, don't have to assume shit. In fact, all of your anti PUA crap is all based on assumptions, bc you can't provide any scientific study that PUA DOESNT WORK. Owned. Im sure that if there were studies that showed PUA DOESNT WORK, you would provide that info, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE STUDY WAS DONE. But since you cant, the only way that I can see if it works is to go out into the field and try it for myself, which you obviously havent done yet.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth For Paul Janka to put out a statement saying he has a success rate higher than 10% would be considered "an act of God". Even the best professional sales reps try not to put on the record that their sales quotas are higher than the law of averages, bc it puts pressure on them to keep that number up. Law of averages is 10%, REGARDLESS of what field you're talking about. However, someone who hasn't been trained in that field will have a LOWER %. This is common sense.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth PUA is a way of coding excellence. We achieve results through the programs we run, not #'s alone. just as a computer is a sequence of codes, PUA programs are a sequence of behavioral and mental codes. Most AFC's dont know they are AFCs. The PUA programs are STRATEGIES to TRANSFORM thinking from AFC to PUA. If the AFC model's the PUA behavior, eventually it will CLICK. If u have the strategy for how someone managed their experience, u have the KEY to reproducing it.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao I want EVIDENCE not analogies! Read the link to Alek Novy site on the main page of SeductionMyth com, and at least TRY to explain why no one tested this PUA delusion although there is a HUGE ECONOMIC incentive to test it!
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Its not an analogy if MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT IT WORK. I dont need to be a scientist in order to show something to the next guy. When u go into the military, a drill instructor BARKS ON YOU for 2 months to get you prepared for military life. Is all military life like boot camp? No. But they teach you EXTREME TRAINING so later YOU WILL BE PREPARED. PUA works the same, thats why they call it boot camp. It's misogynistic in nature to PREPARE YOU in the field.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth After I first finished studying PUA, and I approached women, I bombed dozens of times bc I WAS TOO AGGRESSIVE. Common sense told me to calibrate and ease up. When you are in a PUA boot camp, u cannot tell this secret to an AFC. U HAVE TO DRILL HIS ASS with misogynistic concepts in order to prepare him for the field. He will learn to calibrate and become congruent on his own. This is no secret. You make it work FOR U, not for the next person. I dont think u get this.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth When a chef is making a dinner, not only does he have to follow the recipe for ingredients. He is also following a recipe for thinking and behavior. IT'S A COMBINATION OF BOTH. You keep asking for stats, when you provide zero stats proving otherwise. Where are YOUR STATS proving that PUA DOESN'T WORK? IT WORKS BOTH WAYS. If there have been no tests done, then ONE CANNOT DETERMINE whether or not they work unless they try for THEIR SELF. No study=ZERO RESULTS.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao I DO provide stats showing "looks" (not beauty!) is the main attraction trigger - section "Her Type" on SeductionMyth com. IF skills were the decisive factor there wouldnt be any correlations between facial features! THINK RATIONALLY FOR A SEC
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Professor Richard Wiseman from the University of Hertfordshire did a study in 2008 proving that MAGIC can conjure up confidence and social skills.
Jeffrey Hall and Melanie Canterberry surveyed 363 college students and 850 adults proving that PUA tactics work. It was published in Science Daily magazine August 2011.
Elizabeth Oberzaucher of University of Austria gave results that peacocking increases sex appeal in women. It was published on Discovery TV Feb 2010.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Are you retarded?? I asked for studies comparing success rates, not answering GENERAL QUESTIONS! can't you see the difference between comparing success rates and just asking just what kind of attitude they prefer.
Plus: a scientific study about "MAGIC" - are you serious??
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Even if you did subtract the magic scientific study, I can tell you're trying really hard to ignore the Jeffrey Hall and Melanie Canterberry study, which CLEARLY stated that PUA routines increase your chances to sleep with women. This has been published in several publications. BIG FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao "magic scientific study" LOL Dude, I just dont have the time to read it. Because obviously it's a study based on asking questions, interviewing women! You clearly ignore my argument about whether you prefer women with sense of humor or without? Oh, with sense of humor! So here it goes another seductions school for women this time! You can have Brad Pitt dear ladies cause 99% men said they prefer funny women! Read the main page of SeductionMyth and dont commit obvious mistakes
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth You talk about obvious mistakes, when you made a huge obvious mistake of NOT DOING THE FUCKING RESEARCH. Because if you did, I'm sure you would have addressed these studies on your website...regardless of the one about "magic" that you seem to think is bullshit. Whatever, you can have that one. But the BIGGEST STUDY EVER DONE ON PUA WAS BY Hall and Canterberry with over 1100 men and women, but you ASSUME that its just interviewing women when IT'S NOT. FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth You asked me to provide a study that compares SUCCESS RATES. Well, the Hall/Canteberry study COMPARES SUCCESS RATES. Now you're bitching about HOW the interview was done by simply asking women questions. Well guess what, genius..? IT WASN'T!!! So now I'm sure you're gonna find some other reason to completely deny this PUBLISHED RESEARCH (unlike yours), even though you never said upfront HOW the study had to be conducted. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. Owned.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao What? Do I really have to waste my time, read that shitty study to find out they DO NOT compare success rates?! If I am wrong tell me here HOW DID they compare success rates? Just dont' tell me there was a total of 3 guys in the study!? where they?
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth "Two studies were conducted using Mystery's tricks; one amongst college women and another more broad spectrum of women in the nation. Both found, unsurprisingly, that the kind of woman likely to go for the creepy tactics employed by Mystery and his cult followers, like readers of his book The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed, were typically interested only in casual sex, or hated themselves and woman-kind." That is direct quote. FAIL
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Did you even read you direct quote?? "the kind of woman likely to go for the creepy tactics employed by Mystery and his cult followers, like readers of his book The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed, were typically interested only in casual sex" it DOESN"T say anything about SUCCESS RATES! did they compare the success rate of 2 groups of guys?? Sure, some women go for PUAs, I admitt it on the front page of my website! doesnt fuckin prove anything!
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth With all this talk about success rates, all u have to go do is find a bunch guys who were virgin AFC's and ask them if they are more successful with women after learning PUA. With all your talk about "SUCCESS RATES", u FAIL to even realize that u never even gave a DEFINITION of what SUCCESS IS. OWNED. So that's just another sneaky attempt to find something else to bitch about once people like me show you studies that DO compare success rates, like Hall/Canterberry.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao That's really the last time I explain it! If you ask women about funny PUA teasing approach or you show them like 4-10 guys to choose from and one uses PUA. WTF do you expect? "No we like the boring usual approach"? A woman has "her type", but what are the chances that "her type" is included in the 4-10 guys she can choose from? Genes are decisive otherwise Dr Helen Fisher couldn't have been able to find all these correlations in the thousands of REAL LIFE couples she study.
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Who the hell would even conduct a dumb ass biased experiment like that? Who would even think of that besides you? Even a PUA who was a scientist wouldn't be dumb enough to do an experiment like that, and until you show me a study THAT ACTUALLY WAS DONE LIKE THAT, then I am going to go with the info that I found, which shows PUA TACTICS DO WORK. Of all of the studies I provided you, ZERO of them asked "Do you like funny men?" or anything remotely close. FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao WAIT the fuck! Now, you are lying, in the comment below you said the study is about interviewing 1100 women and men. By success rate I obviously mean comparing someone's success during speed dating (the cheapest way from the practical point of view).
section "A Job For the MythBusters" on SeductionMyth
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth PS: just to avoid your accusations: speed dating or ANY other fair method of measuring success rates. The bottom line is: I don't want to hear about studies where you ask women HYPOTHETICAL questions, or give them say 3-5 men to choose from - that is NOTHING compared to the variety of choices women have in real life. You gonna bitch about statistics - sure it's not 100% accurate, but A LOT more fair than asking questions or asking to pick one from 3 guys!
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth In your frustration to sell me this crap, you responded to your own comment, genius. And you can't send links through youtube comments, genius. Google: "Pickup manuals like "The Game" help misogynists and self-hating women find each other ". It discusses the study. YOu can also google: "An Actual Study on PUA techniques finds that it works...on misogynistic women". Owned.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao "Google: "Pickup manuals like "The Game" help misogynists and self-hating women find each other ".
No just tell me how to find the study itself, not some PUA blog where they interpret the study
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth You expect me to read all that crap on your website, but everytime I point you in the direction of a study, you give me some lame ass excuse of why you're not going to even read it. THINK BEFORE YOU RESPOND...because whatever excuse you reply with besides "Okay, let me check it out" is going to be the exact same response that you get next time you request me to read something from your crappy page, even tho I ACTUALLY READ IT. DON'T BE A DICK.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth I cant find direct links to the study..and I also can't find direct links to the studies that YOU PROVIDE EITHER, but I still don't dismiss the research simply because YOU FAILED to provide direct links. In fact, I haven't dismissed ANY OF YOUR RESEARCH...and for some reason, you think that I am attacking you personally simply because I don't agree with the crap you are selling. You seem to be taking this personally instead of trying to LEARN SOMETHING.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Also read section "Logicall fallacies" on SeductionMyth, cause the amount of logical mistakes you make is just horrifying! Non-sequiturs everywhere! You PUAs in general confuse association with causation - for ex. most successful men tease women so you PUA fools reason merely teasing women gets you orgies with Hollywood starlets LOL
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Your exaggerations make you delusional. I have never once read ANYWHERE that teasing or "negging" women will get an orgie with Hollywood starlets. What I DID say is that the PUA material is designed to turn an AFC to a PUA. THAT is what I said. Your tone is way off but I understand because you didn't ever expect someone to actually debunk your so called research. Until you address the Hall/Canterberry study, you can keep being delusional. You failed and you know it
kungblao 1 week ago
Comment removed
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kungblao No you didnt' say that "teasing or "negging" women will get an orgie with Hollywood starlets." That was on obvious JOKE. BUT you DID imply it will give you a higher success rate with the ladies. You didn't even think that there might be a factor that is DECISIVE (looks). It's like saying 90% of chicks find blue jeans sexy (true) so by wearing blue jeans you have better success rates with chicks - absurd conclusion you PUA freaks reach all the time, just swap jeans with negs
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth When did I imply that negging would give a higher success rate with ladies? I never once implied that. I did, however refer you to the Elizabeth Oberzaucher of University of Austria, which gave results that peacocking increases sex appeal in women. Did you not ask for scientific proof that attraction could be created...this is what I did, and you turned that into me implying an "absurd conclusion". This "absurd conclusion" was scientifically studied, genius. FAIL
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Fuck, another study based on: 1. asking questions or 2. asking women to rate men - DOESNT EXPLAIN ANTHING! Yes, sure it "increases sex appeal" AS A GENERAL rule you moron. It's not like the guy who wear mystery's gay google always gets the girl! Why? because THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS! like genes that a DECISIVE, again and again if genes were not decisive Helen Fisher could't have found all those correlations she describe or you gonna tell me that's just coincidence?
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Do not use other PUA logic as MY PERSONAL LOGIC. Because I, unlike you, are not giving my PERSONAL OPINIONS. I am giving what you asked for. NUMBERS AND FACTS. I would not try to sell you on an idea that I had not actually gone out myself and got results MYSELF...or RESEARCHED FOR MYSELF. So where did I SPECIFICALLY confuse ASSOCIATION FOR CAUSATION. I know the difference. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE PUTTING YOUR FOOT FURTHER DOWN YOUR THROAT. FAIL. OWNED.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao "NUMBERS AND FACTS" hahhah, facts and numbers obtained after interviewing 1100 chicks, but YOU IGNORE THE facts and numbers I rely on that were OBTAINED after analyzing REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICE. Very fair LOL
Let me tell you that end of section "the Experiment" on SeductionMyth is about you. don't worry I didn't use the word "retard" ;)
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth "REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICE?" Really? And I'm guessing that these "REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICES" were....WOMEN? And I'm guessing they weren't "Interviewed" but "ANALYZED"? Right. So the MEN AND WOMEN (Not just women, as you are FAILING to recognize) that I present are automatically filtered out by you as being "Interviewed" but the "REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICES" that you present are filtered as "ANALYZED". PPPffffffttttt! Yeah..okay....FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICE means you moron, that Helen Fisher (for example!) studied THOUSANDS of couples and she found correlations between their hormone levels. HOW the fuck your PUA PSEUDO-science can explain that?? You retards claim ALL that matter are skills not "looks" (that's different than simply "beuty") or genotypes. "Genes and Personality Types" section SeductionMyth - you said you read it, so why are you asking such stupid questions>???
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth The amount of insults that you throw in your comments, not only dilute your argument, but it makes me feel like I'm debating with a fifth grader, so tone it down a little. You're calling me a moron...I mean...really? It's not that serious. Please point out a PUA philosophy that SPECIFICALLY SAID "ALL THAT MATTERS are skills, not looks. Use a direct quote or link. Until you do, then I will take your comment as another exaggeration and FAIL. Stop exaggerating.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth And would you like to explain how this "analyzing" was done? How exactly did they "analyze" these "REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICES?" They analyzed them without asking them questions or interviewing them? Please explain this clearly. I unlike you do not need a direct link to the study, but please explain how they were analyzed without being interviewed or asked questions. If you provide a reasonable answer, then perhaps I would like direct links to the study.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth By you responding "Are you retarded??" while still completely ignoring the Hall and Canterberry study proves how desperate you are to prove a theory that just simply isn't true. Test WERE done, my friend. And these tests concluded that PUA TACTICS WORK. If you simply DID THE FUCKING RESEARCH on Hall and Canterberry, you will see that I'm not making this up. Don't be mad at me..Im just the messenger. FAAAAIIIIIILLLLL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Yes, you must be retarded because I asked you for SUCCESS RATES comparison, not a research where they asked women QUESTIONS! Thats just hilarious, I am not contradicting Hall and Canterberry I am denying the conclusions you draw from this study! For ex. "9 out of 10 women prefer confident men" and PUA morons reason - by mastering self-confidence you can have 9 out of 10 women LOL
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth How did you conclude that the Hall and Canterberry study was done by asking women questions? NEWSFLASH: IT WASNT. Besides, the other studies like Peter Caryl show that women prefer funny PUA opening lines IS PROOF THAT A PUA WILL HAVE A HIGHER SUCCESS RATE than someone who DOESN'T USE FUNNY PUA OPENING LINES. That is common sense, regardless if you agree or not. You do not have to agree with the research. You simply asked me to provide you with studies and I did.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao THESE ARE YOUR OWN WORDS FROM YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT:
"Jeffrey Hall and Canterberry interviewed over 1100 men and women"
So I ask you again, DID they interview or they measured success rates during "action" (honestly doubt they did this last one)
Ok, one more retarded comment like that and you gonna force me to read that friggin study for you to shut up. But could we skip that? Could you just admit they didn't measure any success rates? JUST SEND A LINK TO THE STUDY, ok?
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth They did interview women..but they ALSO ran Mystery's M3 method. There were several types of tests done..some interviewed and some were actual approaches. But I'm sure you're going to ignore the fact that actual approaches were done and just focus on the part about the interview. And regardless if you agree or not as far as the interview process, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK because this is a PUBLISHED STUDY. "How" the interview was done is YOUR gripe.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth There were TWO different studies done...ONE was interviewing COLLEGE STUDENTS ONLY. The SECOND one was done using Mystery's method. What you FAIL to realize is that these are PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS from the University of Kansas, so your lame ass gripe about HOW the research was obtained is a FAIL, especially when all the research THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING WAS DONE BY INTERVIEWING WOMEN!!! FAIL!!!
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. At least once read the studies on SeductionMyth. NONE of them are about interviewing anyone, it's about analyzing thousands of couples and the correlations between genotypes, facial features, etc. How on earth can you beat that?
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Okay well if the studies that you support were done by "analyzing" people, then mine were done by "analyzing" people too. What's the difference? Besides, you didn't even bother to read the article so, you can't even give a proper response without ASSUMING that ALL SIX studies I provided were done with interviews. You're guessing, exaggerating, and justifying without even reading the study or even an article about the study. FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Dr Victoria Zdrok, J.D., Ph.D has done actual field research and is a member of the seduction community. NONE of her research comes from interviewing women, but is actually FIELD TESTED...and she teaches men how to use FIELD TESTED MATERIAL to seduce women. So how can a doctor teach seduction from field tested material if none of this works and there is no such thing as seduction? Failed again.
kungblao 1 week ago
Comment removed
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kungblao LOL a member of the seduction community! Oh, yes this is for sure a fair study LOL "Field testing" is nothing but anecdotes! It IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE REPORT. Have you ever heard of serious scientists "field testing" smth ?? Unless you gonna tell me they track their results in excel and its done but scientists from lets say Harvard. No, the guys who sell that PUA bullshit have no incentive to lie in their "field testing";) are you like the most naive guy on this planet??
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Do you even know what field testing is? Field testing is doing exactly what you have been crying about this entire time..going out into the FIELD...running PUA MATERIAL, then examining the results and comparing them. U keep dismissing PUBLISHED RESEARCH from a "HOLIER THAN THOU" perspective without even reading ANY of the material and providing direct quotes to support your so called logic. I have yet to see you directly quote any PUA material that you consider BS.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth This is exactly how you sound. "PUA is a scam." Which part is a scam? "All of it, but not all of it. Some of it." Why? "BC theres no science backing it up." Well I found a few studies that do support it. "Its bullshit." Did u even read it? "I don't have to." Well how can u say its BS if you didnt read it? "BC they interviewed women & asked stupid questions." NO THEY DIDN'T. Show me. "I dont have to. LOL." Can you show me studies that prove PUA doesn't work? "Um..."
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Last thing: ask dr Zdrok whether she was attracted to all the guys in the community she is in? WHY NOT? according to you all that matters are skills, there you have ex-playmate Victoria Zdrok, blond bombshell, and guys who are skilled. According to your twisted views, they should all have her! In REAL LIFE: Dr Zdrok with her fake "field testing" report, has "her type", facial features (not necessarily beauty) genes etc. Thats why she won't go for ANY guy from the community
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Please point out where I said "All that matters is skills." Fail. Use direct quotes, not exaggerations. Owned. You keep asking for "specific research", yet you exaggerate my comments to fit them into your own philosophy. In fact, I think you have only directly quoted me one time during this entire debate (that you are turning into an arguement bc you keep FAILING.) Please point out specifically where I said "All that matters is skills".
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth You're asking me to read all of these articles which I have already read, yet I provide you with several studies on PUA, and you reply "I don't have time to read them." I am simply providing the information that you said was not out there and you are swearing at me and and ending every sentence with a punctuation mark. Jeffrey Hall and Canterberry interviewed over 1100 men and women..some after being approached by PUAs. To deny you are wrong is just desperate.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao YOU ADMITTED IT YOURSELF so I don't have to read that shit: "They INTERVIEWED 1100 and women". Why didn't they check the effectiveness of 1100 actions??
I am not asking for friggin interviews, but comparison of success rates! it's the only way to eliminate other factors!
Could fucking at least try to respond my arguments??
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Peter Caryl of University of Edinburgh, conducted a study of 127 women resulting in extroverted women tended to prefer funny PUA opening lines. Seattle TImes-Sept 3 2007.
Dr. Paul Eastwick of Northwestern University did a study on 200 speed dates, determining that women are more attracted to social and economic status, rather than physical traits. I.E. men can LIE about their social status to CREATE ATTRACTION THAT WAS NOT ALREADY THERE.
Id keep going but fuck it.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao So keep going, cause THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED FOR! The study merely said that women tended to prefer "funny opening lines". OMG! If I ask you if you prefer women with sense of humor or without, what you gonna reply? Than some fat ugly chick reasons "oh oh, so if I master sense of humor I can have any guy I want!" LOL Thats exactly the way you PUAs reason!
I asked about a study comparing SUCCESS RATES! pay attention! Read main page on SeductionMyth and don't waste my time.
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth You are also ignoring the Paul Eastwick study that proves that women are less attracted to physical traits and more attracted to social status, proving that creation can be created when it was not there to begin with. If a guy lies about his social status, a woman can be more attracted to him when she originally was not. Youtube: Science of Sex Appeal: What Women Find Attractive and watch the last minute or so. FAIL AGAIN.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao These studies were about LONG-term relationships of course, there are TONS of studies proving that for casual sex (thats what you PUAs focus mainly on) women take into consideration LOOKS primary! Moreover, the study didn't say women completely disregard lookss even for long term relationships. And finally you didn't explain why Helen Fisher or Dr Alvarez came to the conclusion its all about types "Her Type" section on SeductionMyth
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth These studies were NOT about LONG TERM RELATIONSHIPS, and you keep beating around the bush...YOU deny any research whatsoever that doesn't prove your "logic". Just like in "Do yourself a favor" u tell people to go out and do research for themselves, however u seem to deny anyone who finds the opposite to be true. Thats like flipping a coin and saying that it's going to be heads everytime, but then blaming the table, the wind, and even the coin itself when its tails.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao "Thats like flipping a coin and saying that it's going to be heads everytime," If you flip a coin an adequate number of times it's always gonna be 50/50. In "Do Yourself A Favor" I ask guys to hit on a big enough amount of chicks during a long enough period of time...
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth No, genius. If you flip a coin 100 times, there is only an 8% chance that it will always be 50/50. I guess in your mind, all you have to do is wish really hard for your opinions to be "true" and they will be. FAIL. Research law of averages. It clearly states that there is an 8% chance for it to be 50/50. This is the very basis of Law of Averages, which you FAIL to understand. Owned.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Are you fuckin kiddin me?? If you flip a coin 2000 times your success rate will be about 50% not 10%! Janka approached THOUSANDS of women, so if you deduct the single ones (let's say even 50%) and the lesbians (let's say even 5%) and let's say another 5% of other strange situations (crazy women etc.) his success rate should be still like 40%! But it's 9,8% WHY? Cause women have their types, and they come down to genes (not beauty itself)
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth "Belief that a sample's average must equal its expected value. For example, if one flips a fair coin 100 times, there is only an 8% chance that there will be exactly 50 heads." That is a direct quote from Wikipedia. Not wishful thinking. FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth You never asked me to research "Long term relationships." You asked me to find research on "SUCCESS RATES", then you told me to pay attention...remember? Well I did just that, then you started talking about how the research I found doesn't count because the women were "interviewed". I then pointed out that only PART of the study was an interview process, then you started talking about how it doesn't count bc YOUR research is based on LTR's. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao YES, I asked you for success rates, and until today you didn't give me one study showing success rates. OBVIOUSLY I want statistically significant group! Not like some PUA showed me one day a study with 3 guys and 3 girls LOL
Success rates: 2 large groups of guys hitting on the same large group of girls, and then we check their success rates.
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth The study wasn't done by simply asking women "Do you prefer a guy who gives funny opening lines" and for you to even assume that shows that you haven't done your research. The Peter Caryl study had women exposed to dozens of PUA openers and routines and asked to evaluate and rate them on a scale from 1 to 5. There were ZERO direct questions. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS are putting your foot further down your throat.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao GOOD, I just gave you an EXAMPLE. OK, so he exposed them to "dozens of PUA openers and routines". So FUCKIN WHAT?? Can't you see that in such study he didn't even contemplate the effect of looks (facial features NOT beauty). He just ASSUMED looks don't matter. BUT if you compare the SUCCESS RATEs during say speed dating, you examine almost ALL factors. The only way to see whether some factor has some influence on the final outcome is to rule out other factors.
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth You're pulling teeth, here. Different studies focus on specific aspects that others do not. It doesn't matter if the Peter Caryl study didn't contemplate the effect of looks, because the Elizabeth Oberzaucher of University of Austria DID. All you have to do is add the results together. This is what us college graduates call a THESIS. I know somehow you're gonna say "You can't do that", but that's exactly what a THESIS is. Cumulative research and findings. FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Your entire website is a waste of time, and I'm starting to realize that you provide this so called "logic" just to get people to click around on your site, in hopes of one day somebody is actually gonna publish that crap. Good luck with that. I'm not insulting you personally, because I'm sure you a nice dude, but nobody is buying that crap on that site. I read all the comments and everything and I'm not the only one saying what I am saying. Your research sucks.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao My "logic"?? LOL that's just logic, if you don't accept it stop debating. About the comments of my website, every PUA was literally destroyed by guys like Piotr (recommend his comments on evolution), Alek Novy, Jake and Mike - but I guess you didn't even read them, you just skipped them and went straight to the comments where some zombie PUA said things I explained 100 times on my website.
SeductionMyth com
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Um..no. Alek Novy pointed out several hundred studies that were done...and you tried to use the same argument that you are using now. "Oh, gripe..it was an interview! Oh gripe, it doesn't count because they didn't use facial attractiveness! Oh gripe, it doesn't count because they didn't interview long term relationships! Oh gripe gripe gripe!" With all this griping, you are failing to realize that these are OFFICIAL PUBLISHED STUDIES, unlike ANY of your work.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Again, and again, we are only demanding a study the would at least come close to what happen IN REAL LIFE. In real life women are not presented 10 guys in a club, NO they can choose from thousands of guys during a weekend night out! How to simulate it? My best idea: speed dating with a large group. That's why studies showing REAL LIFE partner choice show GENETIC patterns. This is more important than status, CAUSE OTHERWISE it would be random, don't you get it?
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@kungblao Last time I explain this: measuring success rates is ESSENTIAL so your
studies suck! It is ESSENTIAL because it is the only way to RULE OUT OTHER
FACTORS. Ex: if U ask any random girl whether she likes confident men - her
answer is obvious! But does it mean that when choosing between 1.000 dudes
(these are her options during a weekend downtown) she will choose simply
the most confident one? Chances are low. Why? Cause there are OTHER FACTORS
that will affect her choice
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Please point out a study that asked the dumb ass question that you are referring to as far as "Do you like confident men?" Fact: I did not provide a study that asked dumb ass questions like that, and for you to even suggest such an exaggeration of a PUBLISHED STUDY shows how much you are trying to exaggerate PUBLISHED STUDIES to fit into your so called logic. I never once provided a study that asked stupid questions like that, but you are saying that I did. FAIL.
kungblao 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth It is obvious to me now that unless YOU are the one who does the research in the way that YOU want it done, and it gets the results that YOU want, then you are going to deny and not even bother to read ANY other research that debunks your views. This is not the way, my friend.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao I already explain your stupid study is about INTERVIEWS! And I demand comparing REAL RESULTS! Is this so much to ask?? Moreover, the funniest thing is that you PUA keep repeating not to listen to what women say, but when asked for studies, you mention a study consisting of INTERVIEWS!
I described it in section "The Experiment" on SeductionMyth com
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Youtube: Science of Sex Appeal: What Women Find Attractive. Turns out there are SEVERAL studies done like this on the whole friggin internet. FAIL. They took regular looking guys and changed their social status around and had women rate them based on their looks and social status. And women rated men who "peacocked" more, had higher social status, and made more money..HIGHER than men who didn't. Now I'm sure ur gonna bitch about HOW the study was done. Owned.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao YES, I WILL "bitch about" how the study is done, BECAUSE:
1- your studies are in fact a set of questions they ask women (in the best scenario women picking one from a VERY limited amount of men)
2- my studies (sections "Her Type" and "Genes and Personality Types" on SeductionMyth) are about REAL LIFE PARTNER choice. End of story!
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth FAIL. IN the "Science of Sex Appeal: What Women Find Attractive", they did not ask women a "SET OF QUESTIONS" at all. They were told to RATE the men on a scale of 1-10 based on a combination of his looks, income, and social status. They determined that "FACIAL FEATURES" were the least of importance bc the ugliest man got the highest rating when women thought he had the most money. FAIL. Owned again. DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao WHAT IS THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE, between asking women a set of questions, and asking women to rate men? Isn't that a fucking question?? "Please rate this men on a scale 1-10"? There was a very limited amount of rated men. Doesn't prove anything! It is nothing compared to the variety of choices she find IN REAL LIFE! My studies, both Dr Alvarez and others, and Helen Fisher studies were about REAL LIFE partner choice, is it so hard to get the difference??
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@kungblao I watched that before you even new there was such video on YouTube, Of COURSE women take money into account, when there are two guys who are "her type" she is gonna pick the wealthier! But it doesn't mean the richest guy in the club can pick up ANY girl he wants! Do you really think this is the world we live in?? No, why? CAUSE WOMEN HAVE THEIR TYPES. The only way to prove smth is by comparing SUCCESS RATES not asking a girl to rate 3 or even 10 guys.
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@kungblao Where in this movie can you find the word "peacocking" ?? If you gonna LIE, stop debating, OK? I watched that movie years ago, and obviously it doesn't prove seduction! Yes, sure women prefer guys with higher social skills if you ask them a HYPOTHETICAL quesion (or give 2, 3 guys to choose from), but IN REAL LIFE, what women pay attention to are principally FACIAL FEATURES - section "Her Type" is based on REAL LIFE partner choice. Don't you fuckin see the difference?
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth Oh my god, you're pulling teeth. They didn't use the word "Peacocking", but I'm sure you know the definition of peacocking, which includes a nice car and dressing in a way that demonstrates a high social status. I am a PUA, so I used the word "peacocking"...but its the same damn result. Common sense is not illegal. THINK. It's not illegal yet..but people like you are working on that everyday.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao OMG! No, they didn't recommend looking like a christmas tree like mystery does. This "amazing" discovery doesn't prove anything. What the fuck did you expect?? "No, I don't like men wearing nice clothes, standing out of the crowd" ?? But does it mean this woman IN REAL LIFE would always choose the guy who is dressed like that? Chances are low. Why? THERE ARE OTHER MORE IMPORTANT FACTORS! which is proven in "Reality Check" tab on SeductionMyth
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@SeductionMyth The point of the study was that a high paying job and a high social status (aka peacocking) is of more importance to women than looks alone. Stop pulling teeth, when you know damn well you are owned. Just face it. I have provided the studies that you said didn't exist. And all of the studies that you are presenting consist of INTERVIEWING WOMEN...REGARDLESS if they are in a LTR or not. And just so you don't start pulling teeth, LTR means LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP.
kungblao 1 week ago
@kungblao Think RATIONALLY for a second at lest! If that was true then (according to you) guys with highest paying jobs and highest social status should be able to get LITERALLY ANY single straight women. You really think this is the world we live in?? Of course not. Why? Cause there are other FACTORS! The study is about asking question/rating A FEW MEN, I am asking for a study that compares the success of 2 large groups of men. IS THIS TOO MUCH TO ASK after 15 years of PUA craze??
SeductionMyth 1 week ago
@Oxiskei @Oxiskei google PUA. Also google these terms: PUA M3 Method. PUA LMR. PUA SHIT TEST. PUA HOOP THEORY. PUA AFC. Read the PUA Glossary. Watch as many episodes of KEYS TO THE V.I.P. that you can. Download "The PickUp Artist"-VH1. Get an account on FastSeduction-com . Watch the movie "Alfie", "Let the Game Begin", "Crazy, Stupid, Love", "Wedding Crashers", and "Swingers". You will never look at women the same...and you will wish that you didn't even know this info.
kungblao 2 weeks ago
@watchCulturetainment Where can i download this ?
GreenZro 3 months ago
@GreenZro did you ever find this? I cant find it anywhere?
kungblao 2 weeks ago
WTF ! Everybody's fighting about man/woman relationship ?? And who is wright and wrong . .??? JEZZZUS, it would be easier to decide what is older chicken or the motherfucking egg ?!!?!! :D
LeonidaOvcar 3 months ago
whats the music playing 1:30 ?
Glad1c4g 3 months ago
Is this even legit :O
loudloving 4 months ago
god. can we all just admit that chicks have more difficulties in life than awesome boobs? as far as looks guys NORMALLY dont have it as hard. NORMALLY. but if they work out or do their hair or have style then its just as hard as anyone else to look nice. but guys have alot of things they have to do to. like taking care of a family and working hard at a job and in many situations it would be harder to be a man. but the same goes for women. having a job or taking care of kids or looking good and
121314dotdotlollipop 4 months ago
married woman is NOT a "difficult woman!" FFS! If some peeps really take this movie as anything more than entertainment , then your sense of reality is really corrupted!
easyhardasitlooks 4 months ago
(y)
ClarinsaPitoy 4 months ago
how can a man who sells books thta promise a "trick" or "key" to seduce woman even get a chick himself?
Blazerelf 4 months ago
Nice Video. Just like the one I have watched from Carlos Xuma- How To Seduce A Woman
echegoyen0728 4 months ago
i was raped at the age of 11, i am now 16
alleykat16h 4 months ago
@alleykat16h and we don't care
RSVDCN 4 months ago
Stupid hollywood-movies. Women are so objectified in this.
snakeweirdo 4 months ago
@snakeweirdo fucking feminists
ADTR72494 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
read this.once u started there is no turni back. a little 10 year old girl was raped and murdured in 1945. her body was not found untill 1947.then a boy last week read this and did not copy and paste this message. the dead girl appeared in his room haunting him and killed him. if ou do not copy and paste this onto 10 videos in 30 minutes the dead girl will appear in your room tonight and haunt you and kill you. well you better start to copy and paste if you want to be safe
MyCutiepiex 4 months ago
tell me how to seduce brother's wife..
Mr2011sunny 4 months ago